COMMITTEE ON PROTECTION OF RIGHTS OF MIGRANT WORKERS CONSIDERS REPORT OF SRI LANKA

The Committee on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families has considered the initial report of Sri Lanka on the efforts of that country to give effect to the provisions of the International Convention on the Protection of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families.

Introducing the report, L. K. Ruhunage, Additional General Manager, Sri Lanka Bureau of Foreign Employment, speaking on behalf of Keheliyn Rambukwella, Minister of Foreign Employment Promotion and Welfare, who could not attend the meeting, said that Sri Lanka had become a key partner in the international labour migration platform over the last three decades. The country today was a significant labour supplier from the South Asian region. With the opening of employment opportunities in the oil-rich Gulf countries, the annual rate of migration of Sri Lankans to other countries increased rapidly. At present, it stood at an average of 250,000 persons per annum. Thus the estimated 1.8 million Sri Lankans in present day overseas contract employment equalled 25 per cent of the total employed population.

As a party to the Convention and a country where nearly 10 per cent of its people were migrant workers, Sri Lanka was fully aware of its responsibilities towards the welfare and protection of its migrant workers and their family members at home and abroad. Dramatic policy changes had been introduced in 1997. The thrust of these policies was primarily on social protection and empowerment of migrant workers. Some of the policy directions of the task force included the appointment of labour welfare offices to Sri Lankan Missions fluent in the language of the receiving country. Recent developments began with the creation of a new Ministry of Foreign Employment Promotion and Welfare in 2007. In 2008 a landmark and pioneering policy declaration entitled National Labour Migration Policy had been introduced.

The Rapporteur for the report of Sri Lanka, Committee Expert Jose Brillantes, said in preliminary concluding observations that the answers by the delegation had been very direct but would have been more interesting if less theoretical and if they had included more statistics. It was now important to see what importance the Convention was taking in the country. The topic of migration was becoming “the flavour of the year” and was also being discussed in the other committees as these issues gained more and more importance. He hoped that this importance would also permeate in the State party’s activities.

Other issues of concern raised by Experts included the number of welfare officers employed in missions and embassies abroad; the content of the Agreements and Memorandums of Understanding between Sri Lanka and receiving countries; the percentage of authenticated contracts; how the country had brought about the change in the male to female ratio in migrant workers; on the number of repatriations carried out by the State party; whether illegal migration and trafficking were considered as crimes; whether reintegration programmes also applied to Tamils; the timeframe in which the National Human Rights Action Plan would be implemented; what was being done to ensure the voting rights of migrant workers abroad; whether the Convention was directly applicable in Sri Lankan courts; whether it was true that it was not possible to challenge expulsion orders in courts; the scope of pre-departure training offered to departing migrant workers; the results of the Colombo Process and the Readmission Agreement with the European Union.

Also in the delegation of Sri Lanka were representatives of the Sri Lanka Bureau of Foreign Employment, the Ministry of Disaster Management and Human Rights and the Permanent Mission of Sri Lanka to the United Nations in Geneva.

Sri Lanka is among the 42 States parties to the Convention and as such it must present periodic reports to the Committee on how it is implementing the Convention’s provisions.

When the Committee reconvenes in public at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, 14 October, it will hold a day of general discussion on migrant domestic workers.

Report of Sri Lanka

The initial report of Sri Lanka (CMW/C/LKA/1) notes that Sri Lanka is primarily a labour sending country. Out of a population of 20 million, 1.5 million Sri Lankan nationals were estimated to be migrant workers abroad as of the end of 2007. Migration of Sri Lankans for overseas contract employment has proved to be a significant feature in the socio-economic life of the country. In 2007, migrant workers remitted about US$ 2,502 million to Sri Lanka. Recognizing the importance of labour and migrant-related activities the Government set up a new Ministry for Foreign Employment Promotion and Welfare in early 2007. The establishment of a separate Ministry reflects the high priority given by the Government to promoting the welfare of migrant workers. Sri Lanka, as a labour exporting country, has entered into several bilateral agreements and Memorandums of Understanding with major labour receiving countries. Sri Lanka has concluded bilateral agreements for recruitment of manpower with Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, the Republic of Korea, Libya and Qatar. At present, Sri Lanka is negotiating with the Governments of Kuwait, Bahrain, Jordan and Oman to finalize Agreements/Memorandums of Understand to regularize the recruitment and welfare of labour.

The Sri Lanka Bureau of Foreign Employment was established in 1985 as a significant step in promoting and regulating foreign employment of Sri Lankan nationals. The Sri Lanka Bureau of Foreign Employment currently operates under the purview of the Ministry of Foreign Employment Promotion and Welfare and is specially authorized to enter into agreements with foreign governments as well as foreign employers and agencies in order to promote and develop employment opportunities for Sri Lankans outside Sri Lanka. The Consular Affairs Division of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs closely liaises with Sri Lankan diplomatic missions abroad in ensuring the expeditious completion of employment formalities as well as the protection of migrant workers abroad. To sensitize and mobilize diplomatic missions abroad in order to safeguard migrant workers’ rights and their welfare, the Government of Sri Lanka has appointed selected officials as representatives of the Sri Lanka Bureau of Foreign Employment in foreign countries. At present, labour welfare officers are attached to almost all Sri Lankan diplomatic missions in labour receiving countries. Further, the Sri Lanka Government is committed to end the practice of trafficking of workers. In February 2006 the Parliament passed an Act to amend the Penal Code by criminalizing trafficking of persons in compliance with standards of international trafficking protocols.

Presentation of Report

L. K. RUHUNAGE, Additional General Manager, Sri Lanka Bureau of Foreign Employment, speaking on behalf of KEHELIYN RAMBUKWELLA, Minister of Foreign Employment Promotion and Welfare, who could not attend the meeting, said that when the Government of Sri Lanka had acceded to the Convention in March 1996, the Government had been fully aware of its commitments and obligations in upholding the rights of migrant workers and their family members as envisaged in the Convention. Sri Lanka had become a key partner in the international labour migration platform over the last three decades.

The country today was a significant labour supplier from the South Asian region. They had begun to experience a considerable migration flow for overseas employment in the mid 1970’s, similar to other Asian countries. With the opening of employment opportunities in the oil-rich Gulf countries, the annual rate of migration of Sri Lankans to other countries increased rapidly. At present, it stood at an average of 250,000 persons per annum. Thus the estimated 1.8 million Sri Lankans in present day overseas contract employment equalled 25 per cent of the total employed population, said Mr. Ruhunage.

As a party to the Convention and a country where nearly 10 per cent of its people were migrant workers, Sri Lanka was fully aware of its responsibilities towards the welfare and protection of its migrant workers and their family members at home and abroad, said Mr. Ruhunage. Dramatic policy changes had been introduced in 1997 on the basis of the recommendations that were made by a Presidential Task Force. The thrust of these policies was primarily on social protection and empowerment of migrant workers. Some of the policy directions of the task force included the appointment of labour welfare offices to Sri Lanka Missions fluent in the language of the receiving country; upgrading training modules for better preparation; and setting up of an airport monitoring mechanism to prevent illegal migration.

Recent developments began with the creation of a new Ministry of Foreign Employment Promotion and Welfare in 2007. In 2008 a landmark and pioneering policy declaration entitled National Labour Migration Policy had been introduced. The three objectives underpinning this policy document were better governance and regulation of labour migration; providing effective protection and welfare services to migrant workers; and mobilizing the contributions of labour migration effectively for socio-development purposes, said Mr. Ruhunage.

Mr. Ruhunage said that his Ministry had established an inter-ministerial steering committee to develop recommendations in the national policy into legislation. The policy initiative of the Ministry of Foreign Employment Promotion and Welfare also included: entering into bilateral Memorandums of Understanding or Agreements with labour receiving countries and introducing a pension scheme for migrant workers, amongst others measures.

Sri Lanka also fully recognized that female labour was dominant in the foreign employment process due to their large presence in domestic, services, garment and manufacturing sectors. He also cited the recent introduction of host country operated insurance and social security schemes for the most vulnerable group of female workers. Such social security schemes had been introduced so far for Sri Lankans in Jordan, the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait. Compensation for deaths, disabilities, medical assistance, repatriation assistance and provision for legal assistance were some of the components covered by these schemes, said Mr. Ruhunage.

Instituting bilateral agreements in the field of manpower recruitment was a key focus area of the Ministry. Curbing human trafficking should be another important component within the system of good governance of labour migration and Sri Lanka was committed to curb this scourge. The Parliament had passed a penal coded amending act in 2006 that criminalized trafficking of women, said Mr. Ruhunage. An anti-trafficking detection centre to nab possible human traffickers and identify their victims was also proposed to be set up at the international airport under the control of the Department of Immigration and Emigration. Sri Lanka had also entered into a Readmission Agreement with the European Union in 2004 to assist stranded and trafficked Sri Lankans to return home.

Recently, by amending the existing foreign employment law which had been framed in 1985, the Government had taken a further step in safeguarding the rights of migrant workers and curbing reported exploitation and abuses. The new amended law increased punishment for wrong-doers and illegal recruiters, Mr. Ruhunage.

In conclusion, Mr. Ruhunage said that acceding to the relevant United Nations and International Labour Organization instruments on migrant workers by labour receiving countries in the Middle East was of vital importance for furthering the promotion and protection of the rights of migrant workers and for future policy development in this area, at national and international levels.

SUJAN NANAYAKKARA, Additional Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Employment Promotion and Welfare, in a PowerPoint presentation, said that his Ministry had been established in 1997 to highlight the importance of Sri Lankan migrant workers abroad and to recognize the contribution they made to the national economy in terms of remittances. There were three dimensional objectives to the Sri Lankan national policy on labour migration: good governance and regulation; protecting and empowering migrant workers; and migration and development.

On good governance there were three essential areas: the institutional, legislative and regulatory framework, said Mr. Nanayakkara. On the institutional framework they had identified the need to identify the roles of all agencies and institutions, to strengthen the role of the Sri Lanka Bureau of Foreign Employment and to establish an Advisory Committee.

They were also aiming towards curbing malpractices of recruitment agencies, the establishment of a code of ethic for recruitment agents and comprehensive recruitment policy setting standards, said Mr. Nanayakkara.

On the protection and empowerment of migrant workers and their families, Mr. Nanayakkara said that they were aiming towards strengthening pre-departure training programmes and implementing awareness programmes. On return and reintegration, they had identified the need for special services on arrival such as welcome programmes.

Among the initiatives that were being undertaken by the Ministry were the establishment of a special unit in the Ministry that would implement migration policy with the assistance of the International Labour Organization; the preparation of a national plan of action with the technical assistance of the International Organization for Migration and the setting up of an inter agency task force, said Mr. Nanayakkara.

Questions Raised by Committee Experts

JOSE BRILLANTES, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of Sri Lanka, said that the report and the presentation today had been quite heavy on wishes, desires, objectives, programmes and policies. However he had not seen any examples of implementation.

Among positive aspects Mr. Brillantes welcomed the creation of posts of welfare officers in the embassies and consulates. How many such welfare officers were there in total and to how many countries had they been deployed. Were there any plans for opening additional welfare officer positions, for example in Bahrain?

Mr. Brillantes also commended the Government for the authentication of contracts. How many of the 1.5 million migrant workers were holding authenticated contracts? He further commended the initiatives for airport monitoring and welfare funds.

Putting up a new ministry was also a very big movement towards progress, noted Mr. Brillantes. But what were the timelines for this ministry?

Mr. Brillantes further commended Sri Lanka for the increase in the male to female ratio in migrant workers from 25 per cent in the 1990’s to 41 per cent in 2005. How had this been done?

On repatriation assistance, how many had been carried out with the assistance of the International Organization for Migration? Mr. Brillantes also commended Sri Lanka for passing legislation on illegal recruitment and for the programmes on reintegration. Could the delegation be more specific about the latter? Were there any reintegration programmes for individuals who were part of the Tamil community living outside of the country, in the framework of the actual reintegration process taking place inside Sri Lanka?

Many of the plans and programmes that were presented today were interesting, but when were they planned to start? When were the first results expected, wondered Mr. Brillantes.

Mr. Brillantes also asked the delegation whether the Government would make available, either to the Committee or anybody else, the bilateral agreements and memorandums of understanding it had signed with receiving countries. Was there any intention to enter into a bilateral agreement with Israel?

Further, what was being done to ensure the voting rights of migrant workers abroad? Also, many workers were not aware that they had to apply to the insurance schemes within seven days of coming back to the country. What was being done to inform them on this matter?

Also, could the delegation offer statistics on irregular migration? How did Embassies provide protection to migrant workers? What were the modus operandi and the modus vivendi between embassies and the receiving state? How was the country informing its citizens and its migrant workers aboard about the Convention?

Other Experts then made comments and asked questions on various issues, including on the existing bilateral and social security agreements with Middle Eastern countries; the rank of the Convention in national law; whether the Convention was directly applicable in Sri Lanka; and whether it was true that it was not possible to challenge expulsion orders in courts. Also, where would the Government find the necessary resources for the planned language trainings?

An Expert noted that the plans and initiatives were good and interesting, but how would the Government go about implementing them? On statistics, what criteria were used to assess poverty? Was it true that Sri Lanka did not experience the problem of undocumented migrant workers coming to Sri Lanka? Was irregular, illegal and undocumented migration considered as a crime in Sri Lanka? On the social fund for migrant workers, was it operational?

Could the delegation inform the Committee on the recent meeting that was held in the United Arab Emirates between sending and receiving countries, what had been the result of this meeting?

One Expert said that he was struck by the emphasis that was given to the information programmes and training centres, while everyone knew that the number of illegal migrants in Gulf countries was significant and probably even surpassed the number of legal migrants.

On the relationship with the European Union, what was the delegation’s assessment of the agreement they had passed with it? Was it working, was it effective? What about the Colombo Process (a regional consultative process on the management of overseas employment and contractual labour for countries of origins in Asia), was it effective?

Response of Sri Lanka

Responding to these questions and others, the delegation of Sri Lanka said that, with regard to the functioning of embassies abroad and the number of welfare officers sent to missions abroad, there were between one to four such welfare officers in their representations in Saudi Arabia, India, the United Arab Emirates, Dubai, Qatar, Jordan, Kuwait, Malaysia, Lebanon, the Republic of Korea and Cyprus.

Sri Lanka had no Embassy in Bahrain and Cyprus but an Honorary Council. Recently, they had decided to open a resident Mission in Libya which would shortly be opened. The welfare of Sri Lankans in Libya would thus be looked after through that Mission. Concerning new destinations countries, to which they would send welfare officers, the delegation mentioned Romania, Russia, Japan and Libya.

Turning to the education system of Sri Lanka, the delegation said that the Government provided free education, free books and two sets of uniforms per year to every child. It was compulsory for all Sri Lankan children to go to school. Parents were answerable if children were not sent to school.

With regard to their relations with Israel, the delegation said that the Minister of Foreign Employment Promotion and Welfare had requested to have a meeting with the Permanent Representative of Israel in Geneva to discuss labour issues. However, due to the fact that the Minister had had to cancel his trip to Geneva, the meeting would not take place.

Further, with the assistance of the International Organization for Migration, Sri Lanka had taken steps towards translating conventions. With regard to the signing of bilateral agreements and memorandums of understanding, the delegation informed the Committee that every time a high-level delegation or representatives from a labour receiving country visited Sri Lanka, one of the subjects of discussion was the signing of the Convention and such agreements.

With regard to the safe houses, the delegation said that they offered accommodation, safety, security and whatever other services were needed for the settlement of cases of migrant workers abroad. Such safe houses were present in all major Sri Lankan migrant worker receiving countries. These safe houses were mainly located in the Embassies or in a separate location. For a rape victim for example, the Embassy would not only protect the victim in the safe house but also help in taking appropriate legal actions. At any given time one could find around 500 inmates in these safe houses. Some were staying for short periods, others for up to three months.

With regard to the insurance programmes and whether migrant workers were aware of these schemes, the delegation said that these were compulsory. All migrant workers should register with the Sri Lanka Bureau of Foreign Employment. A free insurance was provided to them by the State. For this registration a minimum fee was charged. Every migrant worker received a registration notice, which included information and all the details concerning the insurance programmes.

On the Colombo process, the delegation said that it had been initiated in 2003 with the aim of sharing best practices with countries in the region and to enhance dialogue with countries of destination. Observers had also taken part in the process, such as the European Union and the European Commission. Many parties from the Middle East had also actively participated as observers. The change from the Kafala system in some Middle Eastern countries was a result of the Colombo Process, as many had recognized that it violated several rights. This development was the result of a continuous regional dialogue that had been started by the Colombo Process.

A pension scheme was operated especially for those migrants who were residing in countries where there were no such services offered to migrants. This pension scheme was the first for migrant workers in the region.

Additional Questions by Experts

Experts then asked further questions on among other things, what sanctions could be levied against parents of children who did not attend school? Did these sanctions also apply to migrants? How did the Memorandums of Understanding include the provisions of the Convention on the Rights of Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families? Did these agreements refer to the Convention? How did Sri Lanka marry the Convention and these agreements?

Response by Delegation

Responding to additional questions raised, the delegation of Sri Lanka said that, on the question of examples of pragmatic measures to implement the various policies described, an inter-ministerial committee to implement the provisions of the National Labour Migration Policy had been established.

The Sri Lankan authorities had also dealt with errant job agencies in a strict manner and, in 2008, 245 raids had been conducted; 41 cases had led to convictions, 96 had been instituted in courts and 108 were under investigations, said the delegation.

Further, clear and comprehensive recruitment policy guidelines had been established. Job agencies had to seek the approval of Sri Lankan Embassies in the relevant countries. Agencies had to declare the amount they charged from the migrant workers as recruitment fees. Maximum fees had been stipulated and had been published through a Government circular. Agencies charging more than the allowed maximum faced punitive measures. Each migrant worker had to sign their job agreements with their local job agencies in the presence of Sri Lanka Bureau of Foreign Employment officers.

Going back to the question of the number of countries that had welfare officers, the delegation said that between one and five welfare officers were present in Riyadh, Jeddah, Abu Dhabi, Kuwait, Lebanon, Qatar, Jordan, Oman, Cyprus, Singapore, Malaysia, Korea and Japan. All embassies had been provided with interpreters and translators. The number of welfare officers would be increased from the current 28 to 56.

Further, to cover the needs of migrant workers in Bahrain, Sri Lanka embassy officers in Kuwait conducted monthly mobile services in addition to the services provide by the Honorary Consul in Bahrain, noted the delegation. The Government was considering plans to open a resident mission in Bahrain.

On the question of the number of migrant workers who had authenticated contracts, the delegation said that nearly 80 per cent of the 1.7 million migrant workers had individual authenticated contracts. The Government of Sri Lanka did not accept the system of master contracts or any other group contract scheme. The majority of Sri Lanka’s migrant workers in the Gulf were documented.

Concerning the timeframe for the planned activities, the delegation said that activities planned under the national plan of action for the promotion of labour migration would be implemented from 2010 to 2014.

Turning to how they had changed the male to female ratio of migrant worker outflow, the delegation said that this had been the result of the introduction of minimum employment standards for females which had led to a decline in the demand for unskilled female labour.

On repatriation, the delegation said that the Sri Lanka Bureau of Foreign Employment carried out repatriations. In 2008, it had repatriated 808 workers. However during the Israel-Lebanon conflict in 2006, the International Organization for Migration had assisted with the repatriation of nearly 6,000 migrants.

On the question of the reintegration of Tamils wishing to return to Sri Lanka, the delegation indicated that reintegration programmes were open to all returning migrant workers, irrespective of ethnicity.

On the issue of an absentee voting system, the delegation said that they would address the issue in the National Plan. On the time span allowed for migrant workers to claim insurance, the time period was of three months from the date of return and not seven days as stated by one Expert.

Turning to the role of the civil society in the drafting process of the Sri Lankan report, the delegation said that it had not been involved. However, the Government would take this matter into account in the preparation of future reports.

On the issue of irregular migration, the delegation said that they did not have official records on the numbers.

On the protections offered by Sri Lanka to foreign migrant workers, there were no special provisions for their protection in Sri Lanka, however free access to public healthcare was available to all.

On the question of whether workers were getting a pension from the countries they were working in, the delegation said that such benefits were available at present in Italy and Cyprus. The Sri Lanka Bureau of Foreign Employment facilitated the process of claiming pensions when applicable.

On the question of whether the Convention could be invoked directly in a court of law, the delegation said that legislative changes and enactments related to all core human rights instruments were being addressed in the National Human Rights Action Plan.

On the issue of language training for welfare officers and migrant workers, the delegation clarified that they did not provide for comprehensive language training to prospective workers, however they did provide welfare officers with comprehensive language training, as well as basic language orientation for migrant workers.

On the issue of undocumented migrants residing in Sri Lanka, the delegation indicated that illegal migration and trafficking were offences under Sri Lanka’s Immigration Act. They had also introduced new legislation to strengthen the existing legal framework to protect against illegal migration and trafficking.

Turning to the question of the effects of the readmission agreement with the European Union, the delegation said that it had provided a conceptual framework. Sri Lanka was in the final stages of finalizing the process of drafting separate implementing protocol agreements with respective European Union Governments, namely the Netherlands, France and Malta.

Addressing the question of the contents of the various Agreements and Memorandums of Understanding Sri Lanka had signed with labour receiving countries, the delegation indicated that before making those public or showing their content to a third party, they needed the consent of the other party to the agreements. The period of validity for these agreements was of three years. After the expiration, parties could mutually extend the validity for a further period.

The delegation said that these agreements included several important provisions. As an example, the Memorandums of Understanding covered the right to free transportation from Sri Lanka to the destination country for the migrant worker. After completion of the work contract a free return ticket should also be provided for the return home. However, if the migrant worker resigned, for whatever reason, then he had to pay for his return ticket himself.

Another provision of these agreements was the need to have an authenticated contract between the worker and the employer. Contracts had to be approved by the local Sri Lankan mission, the Sri Lanka Bureau of Foreign Employment officers and the receiving country’s Government.

Another feature of the agreements was that no charges or payment could be levied from the receiving country. The Sri Lankan workers also had the right to remit their money to whatever country they wished, said the delegation.

A dispute settlement mechanism was also provided for in these agreements. If amicable settlement was not reached, the matter was sent to the local labour courts of the receiving countries, indicated the delegation. Also, the Memorandum of Understanding with the Government of Bahrain included an exchange of expertise in manpower development.

The delegation also gave information on the Sri Lankan National Human Rights Action Plan and said that it had come out of the Universal Periodic Review. Recommendations from treaty bodies and Special Procedures had also been included in the drafting of the Action Plan. Several key areas of action had been identified. The civil society had also been consulted over the Plan in February 2009. They were currently in the drafting committee stage. Each of the identified targets would have a five year timeframe to be achieved or completed and for each issue, one responsible agency had been identified. Each target looked at the legal, policy and practical framework.

Further Questions by Experts

Experts then made comments and asked additional questions, including the ratio of male and female workers in recruitments and why it had varied so much over time. What sort of services were provided to Sri Lankan migrant workers before their departure to prepare them for their time abroad? Why were only Italy and Cyprus providing pensions to Sri Lankan migrant workers?

On the National Action Plan, one Expert said that as it was still in formulation, it would be a bit difficult for the Committee to predict the final determinations and decisions that would be taken by the national action plan committee. Was there a time limit for the plan to come to fruition? On how much could the Committee rely on this ambitious project that was being planned by Sri Lanka, how fast could the plan be implemented?

Another Expert wondered whether illegal migration and trafficking were considered as separate offences in Sri Lanka.

Response by Delegation

Answering these questions and others, the delegation said, on the trends of recruitments and the male to female ratio in migrant workers, they had stipulated guidelines, minimum standards and minimum salaries for the employment of Sri Lankan migrant workers abroad. They had thus decided that no women could be employed by foreign employers below a certain minimum income. They had not issued any controlling policy to curb the number of female workers.

On the pre-departure orientation programme, the delegation said that the Sri Lankan Government offered country specific training programmes for migrant workers departing for Korea, Japan Cyprus, Israel and Malaysia. These programmes were open to male and female workers.

With regard to the difference between the pre-departure figures in 2008, which was of 250,000 and the number of migrant workers who had attended pre-departure training that same year, which was of 25,000, the delegation said that training was for all migrants. For example, the training was not given to a person who already had previous experience as a migrant worker. Around 40 per cent of female migrant workers re-migrated.

On the issue of social security there were no such agreements with receiving countries, said the delegation.

On the action plan and the fact that it was a recurring theme in their presentations, the delegation said that the Plan had been a pledge they had made during the Universal Periodic Review process; it had commenced at that time. They had tried to be as responsible as possible to take into account various requests. Most of the Plan’s themes were 90 per cent complete and a first draft would soon be issued. They hoped for the Plan to be launched in early 2010.

Illegal migration and trafficking were both treated as a crime in Sri Lanka, but these were separate offences, the delegation said.

Concluding Observations

JOSE BRILLANTES, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of Sri Lanka, in preliminary concluding observations, said that the answers by the delegation had been very direct but would have been more interesting if less theoretical and with more statistics. It was now important to see what importance the Convention was taking in the country. The topic of migration was becoming “the flavour of the year” and was also being discussed in the other committees as these issues gained more and more importance. He hoped that this importance would also permeate in the State party’s activities.

ABDELHAMID EL JAMRI, Chairman of the Committee, in concluding remarks noted that Sri Lanka had done a lot to strengthen the institutional structure with regard to migrant workers, by setting up a national plan for human rights and by signing a number of Memorandums of Understanding and Agreements with receiving countries. The results of those new actions would probably be only seen in the medium term. On elements running against the rights of the migrants, some of the issues were linked to the situation in the country as well as the situation in the receiving countries. He encouraged Sri Lanka to work to address all the issues working against the rights of migrant workers.

For use of information media; not an official record

CMW09017E